Phil's blog on interesting statistics, economics, politics, sport and music

Saturday, 22 December 2018

Tens of Thousands?

The Government's
White Paper on post-Brexit immigration will not reduce net immigration to the
tens of thousands, even if that is a sensible policy aim. Who says so? Former
Theresa May confidante Nick Timothy. Timothy says*:

Despite the headline promise of a skills-based
system, there are several gaping holes in the
white paper that will allow low-skilled immigration to Britain to continue, and cause an unlimited volume of
supposedly skilled migration.

The cap on skilled migration
will be removed. Rules requiring employers to advertise jobs in Britain
before recruiting migrants will disappear. The need for employers to
obtain a “sponsor licence” will be dropped. Subject to a salary threshold,
any worker classed as skilled – from anywhere in the world – will be
entitled to compete with British workers for the same job.

What constitutes skilled work
is changing. Work permits will be made available for medium-skilled as
well as high-skilled workers. The qualifications required to prove skilled
worker status include A-levels and NVQs. Migrants will be free to apply
for 142 additional occupations, including hairdressers, newsagents,
bricklayers, gardeners and fitness instructors. All in all, this is the
equivalent of five million jobs, a third of Britain’s entire full-time
workforce

Timothy argues that the white paper "risks taking us back to the bad
old days under Labour". Then, almost one third of supposedly
“highly-skilled” migrants were working as shop assistants, security guards,
supermarket cashiers and care assistants.

Yes, there is a
salary cap of £30k but the white paper says the Government will “allow
migration at lower salary levels” for some jobs and sectors. It promises that
foreign students should, upon graduation, be “subject to a lower salary
threshold”, regardless of the quality of their degree. And ministers are
arguing that the salary threshold should be lower than £30,000. As a result,
although the Migration Advisory Committee recommendations were made following
an extensive consultation with business, there will now be another consultation
with employers. Their interest is obvious: many labour market studies show
higher immigration can reduce wages for people in certain jobs.

Timothy's
summary is that the white paper proposes lifting the cap on skilled
migration, expands the definition of skilled work, and makes British workers
compete for millions more jobs. It acknowledges that unskilled immigration will
continue anyway through family visas, the asylum system and labour mobility
schemes. And it confirms that we have more than 1.5 million low-skilled migrant
workers already in Britain. It also proposes new short-term visas for low
skilled workers, lasting for less than 12 months and so outside the immigration
statistics.

So the White
Paper is highly likely to fail in its supposed aims. Timothy also sees it as a
missed opportunity:

"Aligned
with industrial strategy, it could have prioritised the sectors and skills our
economy needs. Aligned with an ambitious cities strategy, it could have done
more to make regional cities more dynamic. Aligned with the Brexit
negotiations, it could have offered preferential treatment for European workers
in return for better access to the single market. And it could have brought
control to our immigration system. Instead, it is a missed opportunity that
risks bringing about the very opposite of what ministers promise."

I am a supporter
of an Australian points-based system for immigration, focussed on getting the
skills and numbers we need while ensuring that we develop British people to
meet as many of the needs as possible, rather than just turning to immigration
to fill all the needs on a short-term basis. I am deeply sceptical that a
salary cap is the way to go as the implication is that higher earners can come
in regardless. I don't think this is right from the point of view of developing
our own people, though I accept that, in key industries, we need the skills
when we need them to for businesses to develop.

I had thought
Sajid Javid showed promise. But this all sounds like another fine mess in the
making.

However, the
important thing about all this is that, after Brexit we can have a
comprehensive immigration policy. If the one adopted isn't fit for purpose
we can change it. I would still rather it was up to us.

* Nick Timothy's
article The Government's grand post-Brexit immigration plan is likely
to see numbers rise was in the Telegraph on 19 December